A psychological perspective towards understanding the objective and subjective gray zones in predatory publishing

A continued lack of clarity persists because academics, policymakers, and other interested parties are unable to clearly define what is a “predatory” journal or publisher, and a potentially wide gray zone exists there. In this perspective, we argue that journals should be evaluated on a continuum, and not just in two shades, black and white. Since evaluations about what might constitute “predatory” are made by humans, the psychological decision-making system that determines them may induce biases. Considering such human psychological characteristics might shed light on the deterministic criteria that have been used, and continue to be used, to classify a journal or publisher as “predatory”, and perhaps, bring additional clarity to this discussion. Better methods of journal evaluation can be obtained when the factors that polarize journal evaluations are identified. As one example, we need to move away from simply using whitelists and blacklists and educate individual researchers about how to evaluate journals. This paper serves as an educational tool by providing more clarity about the “gray” publishing zone, and argues that currently available qualitative and quantitative systems should be fused to deterministically appreciate the zonation of white, gray and black journals, so as to possibly reduce or eliminate the influence of cognitive or “perception” bias from the “predatory” publishing debate.

Bio, psycho, or social: supervised machine learning to classify discursive framing of depression in online health communities

Supervised machine learning on textual data has successful industrial/business applications, but it is an open question whether it can be utilized in social knowledge building outside the scope of hermeneutically more trivial cases. Combining sociology and data science raises several methodological and epistemological questions. In our study the discursive framing of depression is explored in online health communities. Three discursive frameworks are introduced: the bio-medical, psychological, and social framings of depression. ~80 000 posts were collected, and a sample of them was manually classified. Conventional bag-of-words models, Gradient Boosting Machine, word-embedding-based models and a state-of-the-art Transformer-based model with transfer learning, called DistilBERT were applied to expand this classification on the whole database. According to our experience ‘discursive framing’ proves to be a complex and hermeneutically difficult concept, which affects the degree of both inter-annotator agreement and predictive performance. Our finding confirms that the level of inter-annotator disagreement provides a good estimate for the objective difficulty of the classification. By identifying the most important terms, we also interpreted the classification algorithms, which is of great importance in social sciences. We are convinced that machine learning techniques can extend the horizon of qualitative text analysis. Our paper supports a smooth fit of the new techniques into the traditional toolbox of social sciences.